According
to the globalists, the Constitution must be crushed in order to establish
global governance. Every freedom must be revoked; the Bill of Rights
must be misrepresented with persuasive propaganda from the most trusted
sources. The entire deceptive operation must
appear to benefit the masses. It must be shrewdly executed with
focused determination or the populace may awaken and revolt.

“The
religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to the British
North American colonies sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants
and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any
given society. This conviction rested on the belief that there was
one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities
to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the
souls of all citizens.”[1]

Religious
intolerance and persecution is rampant in many countries. Because
of the religious intolerance directed at my own ancestors I am adamant
about separation of church and state. Religious reformer John Rogers,
a distant but direct ancestor (11th great grandfather), was burned
at the stake on February 4, 1555 at Smithfield, near Warwick, Nottinghamshire,
England during the reign of Mary Tudor. He was a close associate of
William Tyndale and an editor of the “Matthew
Bible.” Rogers was the first British Protestant martyr under Queen
Mary. “On the Monday morning of his death, the Sheriff had shown Rogers
a document promising pardon if he would recant. ‘That which I have
preached with my lips will I seal with my blood,’ was the answer.”[2]

The
Constitution established our federal government. That document is
a two way agreement; it is every citizen’s social contract with their
government. Accordingly, all of our rights are protected – except
the ones we willingly give up. Driven by government-provoked
fear, we frequently give up sovereignty for alleged security.
We are relinquishing, little by little, our God-given freedoms and
will eventually wake up enslaved in a tyrannical, controlling state.

Mass
persuasion by public officials, news commentators, teachers and some
church leaders falsely claim that we live in a democracy rather than
a republic. Some of those same individuals claim that “separation
of church and state” is not a constitutional concept. Repetitive lies,
accepted as fact, soon gain acceptance by those who fail to read the
available documents. “The most brilliant propagandist technique will
yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind
constantly... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them
over and over.”— Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister.

Individual
rights were completely absent from the first draft of the Constitution.
“Unless assured that a bill of rights would be passed, many states
threatened to withhold ratification of the Constitution. Consequently,
in 1789, the First Congress of the United States adopted the first
ten amendments to the Constitution, known collectively as the Bill
of Rights. Ratification of these amendments by the required number
of states occurred in 1791.”[3]

First
Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.”

Madison’s
first draft of the First Amendment read: “The civil rights of none
shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall
any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal
rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.”[4]
It is highly significant that religion, of all the liberties embodied
in the Bill of Rights, is the very first freedom mentioned. The First
Amendment, possibly the most important in the Bill of Rights, enumerates
five freedoms: religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Those
God-given freedoms facilitate individual participation in the process
of self-government.

The
Bill of Rights pertains to and was designed to protect the individual
rights of each and every person. The specific tenets of the Bill of
Rights were not rights granted to the government, an artificial body
created by the citizens. The right of “free exercise” pertains to
individuals, not to government. Therefore, a government entity or
any person representing that entity cannot claim or seize “free exercise.”
The “free exercise” of an individual’s religion, not the government’s
religion, is constitutional. Consequently, a government employee may
not constitutionally direct any type of religious observance while
functioning in that government-sponsored occupation.

The
Religious
Right and their minions endorse their versions of school prayer.
My children attended school to study math, grammar, penmanship, history,
biology, science, and to enhance their already developed reading skills.
I did not send them to school to learn to pray. We pray regularly
in our home and at church. Citizens should not be obligated to pay
taxes for students to learn how to pray. Given America’s diversity,
what kind of a prayer would it be: Catholic, Baptist, Seventh-day
Adventist, Episcopalian, Jewish, Methodist, Mormon? Which students
are going to feel discomfort or suffer mild to aggressive persecution
for not being the “right” religion? Will the students who belong to
the “right” religion feel compelled to openly pray for the “sinful”
student – to save his or her soul from hell? Governments should not
sponsor any activity that contributes or provokes persecution or aggression
towards others based on religion or ethnicity.

“The
Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on
the part of the founders of our Constitution that religion is too
personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its ‘unhallowed perversion’
by a civil magistrate. Another purpose of the Establishment Clause
rested upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally
established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand.”[5]

Thomas
Jefferson stated: “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer
to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the
enterprises of the civil authority.” This includes the “rights of
conscience” that multitudes of others may disagree with.

Despite
the intentionally secular foundation of the constitution, there have
been and will continue to be controversial court cases, many perpetuated
by stables of high-priced attorneys retained by different factions
of the Religious Right to publicize the questionable premise that
America’s Christians are consistently persecuted. The actual objective
of such lawsuits is to outrage the voters who will then demand specific
religious freedoms even if it means incremental loss of religious
freedoms or discrimination for others. The very people who should
make every effort to protect religious freedom are, in fact, jeopardizing
it.

In
colonial times, many European monarchs referred to their nations as
Christian countries. However, sinners and hypocrites comprised the
bulk of their local populace. Nations, like people, are defined by
their national character and moral fortitude. To the colonial, Roger
Williams, residency in a particular place did not equate to Christianity.[6]
Likewise, given our duplicitous propensity for class discrimination,
abortion, offensive war, the economic destabilization of other countries
and deathly sanctions, referring to America as a Christian nation
casts super serious doubt upon our interpretation of a Christian.

Many,
particularly in the Religious Right, claim that the United States
was established as a Christian
nation rather than a free nation. They perpetuate this erroneous
theory in order to attract other morally upright people who might
naïvely embrace the Religious
Right’s spurious agenda. However, to appeal to others, they downplay
the word “Christian” and include others they may have previously attempted
to discredit as non Christian. “By referring more ecumenically to
the United States as a religious nation, they invite other religious
traditions to join a family-values crusade launched originally by
a particular form of Christian faith.” … “A shift in rhetorical strategy
to widen political appeal does not affect the substantive issues at
stake.”[7]

Every
decent person is for “family values” but not through government enforcement.
People who endorse separation of church and state do not hate religion!
Justifiable objections arise when some “Christian leaders” demand
that their particular version of religion be incorporated into the
nation’s laws.

In
every age, religious advocates have attempted to influence others
through government enforcement. Individuals seeking political office
frequently use religion to draw support from the religious community.
Campaign customs have significantly changed in the last four to five
decades. Candidates discuss ideology instead of specific political
issues that detrimentally affect every single citizen. View one of
John
F. Kennedy’s campaign speeches and then evaluate contemporary
candidate rhetoric – it is a night and day difference.

The
founding fathers had respect for religion and it is because of that
respect that they resisted some of the religious leaders of the day
and refrained from merging the operations of government with religion.
To serve Dominionist
goals, it is relatively easy to harvest ambiguous quotes from
the founders that appear to endorse the merging of church and state.
There are sufficient public examples that history revisionists use
to “prove” that religion and politics are compatible.

The
phrase “In God we trust” is on our money as a result of the pressure
and ranting of Horace Bushnell, a Connecticut preacher, who said that
the Civil War was “divine retribution” for America’s acceptance of
“speculative and infidel” ideas that government was not ordained by
God. It is a blasphemous insult to put God’s name on worthless paper
printed by the international bankers who hijacked our economy and
are currently draining America’s resources. The majority of people
may actually trust money and the power it gives more than they trust
God. In today’s corrupt climate, anyone can literally “buy anything
in the world for money” and it is outrageous to attach God’s name
to filthy lucre, made filthier by the mass destruction that it causes
in the hands of those who seek total control.

“Render,
therefore, to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things
that are God’s.” – Mark 13:17 and Luke 20:25

Blaming
Lincoln’s war of northern aggression on infidels is akin to some current
religious leaders who claim that 9/11 is the result of our country’s
homosexual tolerance. Falwell remarked: “I really believe that the
pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and
the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle,
the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried
to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you
helped this happen.’”[8]
How discomforting that some religious leaders, who have similar, though
secret lifestyles, reject individuals and dispel them from their
midst rather than inviting everyone into their realm in order to love
and teach them. Isn’t it time that we separate church and hate. What
happened to true worship – emulation?

Perhaps
Falwell’s apology was insincere considering that he continues to define
others in negative terms such as being anti-Christ. This “Christian”
preacher’s unabashed comments are regularly heard in the “conservative,”
administration-friendly media.[9]
This is so radically different from his methodology before he combined
his abilities with those who spearheaded the most current assault
on the religious clauses within the First Amendment.

The
suddenly star-struck Falwell was a typical preacher who understood
the gospel process up until his merger with the ultra conservative
New Right. Falwell said the following during the civil rights movement
of the 1960s: “We have a message of redeeming grace through a crucified
and risen Lord. Nowhere are we told to reform the externals. We are
not told to wage a war against bootleggers, liquor stores, gamblers,
murderers, prostitutes, racketeers, prejudiced persons or institutions,
or any other existing evil as such. The gospel does not clean up the
outside but rather regenerates the inside.”[10]

Changing
society begins with changing oneself. Religious practitioners need
to address the individuals in their congregations – that is their
job. The churches must get back to doing what they are supposed to
do – not lobby government officials to instill additional mountains
of repressive, bigoted regulations designed to disenfranchise certain
groups and strip others of their individual freedoms. That is hardly
moral or just. Morality, especially from an apparently immoral human
entity like the government, cannot come from the top down. It will
deliver quite the opposite.

Many
prefer fast food religion rather than repentance and “feasting upon
the word of God.” Repentance changes hearts which then results in
better behavior including a desire to bury the weapons of war, support
peace and view one’s alleged enemies in a completely different light.
Good behavior as a result of government enforcement, a function that
many want the government to assume, does not impact the heart and
soul.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Personally,
I would not entrust a government that kills the citizens of weaker
countries with the task of saving my soul. Nor would I trust the very
vocal religious practitioners who support such senseless slaughter.
It appears that many individuals, including religious leaders, have
created the “Uncle Sam” golden calf. Rather than self-reliance, a
by-product of accepting responsibility and repenting for one’s own
behavior, many rely upon “Uncle Sam” to solve every dilemma and enforce
better behavior. It is all a diabolical deception to strip us all
of our free agency and the very ideals and principles we cherish.

Deanna Spingola
has been a quilt designer and is the author of two books. She has traveled
extensively teaching and lecturing on her unique methods. She has always
been an avid reader of non-fiction works designed to educate rather than
entertain. She is active in family history research and lectures on that
topic. Currently she is the director of the local Family History Center.
She has a great interest in politics and the direction of current government
policies, particularly as they relate to the Constitution.

The
Constitution established our federal government. That document is a two
way agreement; it is every citizen’s social contract with their government.
Accordingly, all of our rights are protected – except the ones we willingly
give up. Driven by government-provoked fear, we frequently give up sovereignty
for alleged security.